Since it
is not unreasonable to suggest that the
NHS saved my life last year, I hold it in high regard. That does not mean that it should be any more immune to criticism than any other organisation where it is capable of being improved.
NHS saved my life last year, I hold it in high regard. That does not mean that it should be any more immune to criticism than any other organisation where it is capable of being improved.
In
particular it seems to me inappropriate to judge performance by the
amount of money spent. Ring fencing public spending on the NHS when
as a nation we are living beyond our means and having to implement an
austerity programme is no more sensible than insulating any other
part of society from real economics.
It is most
unlikely to be the case that every pound spent on a particular good
or service returns equal value. Elementary economic principles
suggest that we logically buy the most important things first and the
least important last. This means that some of the marginal purchases
can be cut without a reduction in effectiveness anything like so
large as the saving.
It is, of
course, always controversial when someone is denied treatment on
grounds of expense. Taken individually, all such cases arouse our
sympathy and we feel that they deserve help. That emotion however is
not a valid economic choice. There are always more effective
treatments available to society than society can afford; choices
always have to be made since we do not have unlimited spending power.
Health
economists some time ago developed the concept of QUALY or quality
adjusted life year. They use this to calculate the value to society
of any health expenditure; how many additional years of good quality
life will a particular treatment produce compared to alternative uses
of the same money.
Suppose
for example that the cost of an expensive cancer treatment could be
used to purchase 10 relatively cheap hip replacements. The cancer
treatment might give the patient another 15 good years but the hip
replacements might give each patient another five good years. In
simple terms the second option is a better use of public money
unless, for example, there are exceptional circumstances such as the
cancer treatment pioneering a new drug which may subsequently become
much cheaper.
Even here
however we are dealing with a choice between patients who are all
ill. I may be wrong but in times of stringency I can see little
public benefit from spending scarce NHS resources on fertility
treatment or purely cosmetic surgery. I am not suggesting that these
are not deserving cases. I would however argue that they are not
deserving of diverting expenditure away from sick people.